[maxioatic]

It was about table saws, not circular saws. There’s a big difference between the two. Table saw accidents often result in losing fingers and it’s not that difficult to mess up while using one.

There’s a well known, proven, easy solution to table saw accidents called SawStop. It’s basically as obvious to use as a seat belt is if you want to be safe. The only problem is those table saws are very expensive.

Social media doesn’t have an existing and obvious solution (besides not using it).

[planede]

Isn't SawStop patent encumbered? AFAIK the three point seat belt design's patent was made open by Volvo at the time, so the patent didn't hold back adoption.

[michaelt]

Yes - in fact the whole company was started by a patent attorney.

SawStop says they'll release one patent (which is about to expire anyway) but they've got a huge portfolio of other ones, and companies like Grizzly say that SawStop is unwilling to engage with them in good faith on licensing their technology.

Bosch released a saw with similar tech, except unlike SawStop it didn't use overpriced consumables every time it triggered. SawStop sued the product off of the market.

The company founder also serves as an expert witness when people shove their hands into moving saw blades, then sue the saw makers - testifying that the makers should be held liable because they haven't licensed his invention.

Of course, I'm sure for SawStop getting all their competitors banned will be a highly profitable decision; it's no surprise they're lobbying for it.

[OvidNaso]

Sawstop did sue Bosch, but then changed their mind and gave them a free license immediately after the case was won. It was boschs decision not to release their product in the US for whatever reason.

[pcl]

The CEO committed to releasing the one remaining patent to the public domain earlier this year.

[margalabargala]

SawStop has publicly pledged to dedicate their patents to the public if this becomes mandated.

[XorNot]

I think this could be aptly summarized as "you can't accidentally slip and become depressed" using social media. You can absolutely slip and lose one or several fingers or your entire hand using a table saw.

The more pertinent comparison would be alcohol IMO: none of the people who want "something" done about social media seem to have a problem with the widespread, massive use of alcohol within society and the incredible amounts of continuous and ongoing damage it does.

[unclebucknasty]

>I think this could be aptly summarized as "you can't accidentally slip and become depressed" using social media

I think the point is exactly that you can.

[XorNot]

No you can't. You can, through usage over a long period of time, and by ignoring a lot of good advice, create problems for yourself just like anything else.

If a table saw could only remove your hand after years of dedicated usage, then sawstop wouldn't be the obviously good idea it is.

Hence why the comparison to alcohol is much more apt, and yet, mysteriously - absent in the discussion.

[unclebucknasty]

These read like distinctions without differences.

Damage from social media use is gradual and insidious. Additionally, it's designed to be addictive, slowly pulling users in. There is no threshold that announces itself when users are addicted or have begun to "ignore a lot of good advice".

There's also no absence of discussion around the dangers of alcohol or drugs. And, there are actual laws regulating or outright banning their use.

But, even if it was absent from the discussion, that would not absolve social media. Is every world issue rendered illegitimate if we don't also mention the dangers of alcohol with equal fervor? It seems a random, meaningless requirement.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

[XorNot]

I think every issue is due consideration in the context of "do I personally not care about the thing I want to regulate about everyone else?"

Alcohol is a useful yardstick, because it was banned (to considerable disaster), almost everyone likes it, the misusers tend to not realise it till considerably later, and we've got studies which look dire on the cost to society of it in fiscal terms.

If what you're calling for would seem ridiculous if it were applied to alcohol, then maybe it's just going be ineffective or you just don't have any "skin in the game" so to speak: after all, both serve a considerably important social cohesion function as well.

Which to loop it back around is why trying to compare social media regulation to something like mandating sawstop is especially disingenuous.

[unclebucknasty]

So, if there's not an easy solution, we should de-emphasize the problem?

[maxioatic]

That’s not what I meant. It’s hard to compare these two problems because one is effectively solved (table saw) and one is not (social media).

[pas]

People need mental healthcare too. Done. Solved. Treat it like any addiction.

Of course the trick is that social media access doesn't require folks to pay an upfront cost, so it's harder to slap the cost of this additional service on the transaction. But of course as financial regulation makes banks do KYC and file SARs (suspicious activity report) social media regulations could do something similar. (Hurray more surveillance saves the day!)

[unclebucknasty]

I see. Just seems a bit circular, as the original question implies creating solutions.

Also, seems like an odd gating criteria for whether or not people support the idea of regulating social media (i.e. per the specific thrust of the original question).